Planning Bill

I want to know whether or not it was interesting. I am grateful for the explanation on the first clutch of amendments. I, too, am puzzled by there being no reference to air traffic movements. Stansted is relevant because it shows that the Government were thinking in terms of transport movements and passenger numbers, which are equally relevant in their impact. I entirely agree that an additional 10 million, or however many million passengers going through a terminal is—if I can use the term a bit non-technically—material. I accept that it is very significant, but I should have thought it appropriate to have parallel thresholds so that both or either could be used. I do not feel capable of drafting off the top of my head at this time of night, but I want to explore that. I am very conscious of the time that the Bill is taking. Perhaps we can explore it further outside the Chamber with a view to coming back with an amendment. I might talk to the Minister about that between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.] [Amendment Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.] Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23 [Harbour facilities]: